Next Article in Journal
Evaluating the One-Year Impact of School e-Cigarette Use Interventions among Current Youth e-Cigarette Users in the COMPASS Study, 2017/18–2018/19
Previous Article in Journal
Physiological Effects of Visual Stimulation by a Japanese Low Wooden Table: A Crossover Field Experiment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 14
10.3390/ijerph20146352
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Integrated Long-Term Care ‘Neighbourhoods’ to Support Older Populations: Evolving Strategies in Japan and England

by
Ala Szczepura
1,*,
Harue Masaki
2,
Deidre Wild
1,
Toshio Nomura
1,
Mark Collinson
3 and
Rosie Kneafsey
1
1
Research Centre for Healthcare and Communities, Institute for Health & Wellbeing, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK
2
Graduate School of Nursing, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522, Japan
3
MC2S Consultancy Services, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire B48 7JX, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(14), 6352; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20146352
Submission received: 12 April 2023 / Revised: 21 June 2023 / Accepted: 6 July 2023 / Published: 12 July 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Western countries are currently facing the public health challenge of a rapidly aging population and the associated challenge of providing long-term care services to meet its needs with a reduced working age population. As people age, they will increasingly require both health and social care services to maintain their quality of life and these will need to be integrated to provide cost-effective long-term care. The World Health Organization recommended in 2020 that all countries should have integrated long-term care strategies to better support their older populations. Japan, with the most rapidly ageing society in the world, started to address this challenge in the 1990s. In 2017, it introduced a national policy for integrated long-term health and social care services at a local geographical level for older people. England has recently embarked on its first plan aiming for the integration of services for older people. In this article, we compare these approaches to the integration of long-term care systems, including the strengths of each. The paper also considers the effects of historical, cultural and organizational factors and the emerging role of technology. Finally, we identify critical lessons that can inform strategy development in other countries, and highlight the need to provide more international comparisons.

1. Introduction

It is estimated that the world population aged 65+ will nearly double from 9.3% in 2020 to 16.0% by 2050 [1]. The fact that people are living longer is a positive reflection on improvements in health and long-term care services; at the same time, falling birth rates are leading to a decrease in the number of working age populations available to provide care [2]. Countries are at different stages in this aging journey. Of these, Japan is the most rapidly aging society, with 28.2% of its population now in this age group [3]. In developed countries, the super-aged population (people aged 85+) poses an additional challenge; the United Kingdom (UK) has the fastest growing super-aged population world-wide, predicted to double by 2041 and treble by 2066 [4]. These two countries therefore offer a useful comparison.
As people grow older, they develop various age-related chronic illnesses, physical disabilities and conditions such as dementia [5]. The integration of health and care services in order to meet these complex care needs is now recognised as a global policy challenge [6]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently proposed that all countries should have integrated long-term care strategies to better support their older populations [7]. In this paper, we will focus on strategic macro- or national-level policies designed for the integration of care rather than, as pointed out in a recent systematic review, that adopted by most academic studies to date on the care delivery level or micro-level [8].

2. Post-War Development Adult Health and Social Care in Japan and England

Japan established a 10-year strategy to improve long-term care for the elderly (Gold Plan), together with long-term care insurance, in the 1990′s [9], and first introduced a national policy of community-based integrated care in 2017 [10]. In England, the government published its ten-year vision for adult social care reform in 2021 [11], including proposals for the integration of health and social care [12].
Table 1 provides an overview of the national demographic and economic context of long-term health and social care in the two countries. This shows that both countries spend the same proportion of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on healthcare, while raising similar amounts of tax revenue relative to this figure. At the same time, Japan has a higher proportion of older people. It also has a higher life expectancy, the highest in the world; this may be considered a positive outcome resulting from national health policies. In contrast to the UK, Japan also faces a halving of its total citizens by 2100, resulting in a significant decrease in the working-age population. While both countries face a similar aging challenge, their different histories have inevitably influenced the integrated long-term care strategy each has developed to better support its aging population.

2.1. History of Health and Welfare Policies for Older Adults in Japan

Following the Second World War, the restructuring of healthcare in Japan strengthened community health and public health, and expanded employee-based health insurance and community health insurance [16]. By the 1960′s, universal health insurance coverage had been achieved; this included variable co-payment (public and government) rates that could reach up to 50 per cent for some patients. In 1963, the Social Welfare Services for the Elderly Act led to the creation of care homes and legislation for domiciliary care (see Table 2). However, social care still remained largely dependent on families [17]. Free healthcare for older people was first introduced in 1973. Increased rates of the hospitalization of older adults with predominantly social care needs led to a national ten-year strategy for the Promotion of Health and Welfare for the Elderly (Gold Plan) being introduced in the early 1990s. This was followed by a New Gold Plan and a Long-Term Care Insurance (LTCI) Act to further improve long-term care funding following the economic recession [9]. Changes to family structures [18], a more gender-equal workforce [13], and older people living alone rather than in traditional multi-generation households [19] had inevitably reduced the state’s ability to rely on the unpaid care hitherto provided by family members thereby subsidizing care costs.
The LTCI Act represented a major reform because it introduced insurance specifically for long-term care needs, and also attempted to address the challenge of balancing high-quality care with cost containment [20]. Long-term care was to be funded partly by insurance and partly by co-payment through employer and employee contributions, combined with general taxation [21]. The Act ensured the provision of all necessary care for those aged 65 years and over. Up to that point, citizens were only required to have medical insurance. With the Long-Term Care Act, once a person was aged over 40 years, extra insurance premiums had to be paid. Over time, it became apparent that additional government funding was required to meet the care costs of older adults living in poverty and unable to pay insurance [22]. Additionally, the needs of younger people with disabilities for long-term care were increasingly recognised and a separate national insurance fund was established to cover disabled people aged 40–65 years.
Table
Table 2. Development of Health and Welfare Policies for Older Adults in Japan.
Table 2. Development of Health and Welfare Policies for Older Adults in Japan.
Date: DevelopmentMajor Policies
1960s: Beginning of welfare policies for the elderly1963 Enactment of the Act on Social Welfare Services for the Elderly
◇ Intensive care homes for the elderly created
◇ Legislation on home helpers for the elderly
1970s: Expansion of healthcare expenditures for the elderly1973 Free healthcare for the elderly
1980s: “Social hospitalization” and “bedridden elderly people” as social problems1982 Enactment of Health and Medical Services Act for the Aged
◇ Adoption of co-payments for elderly healthcare
1989 Establishment of Gold Plan (10-year strategy for promotion of health and welfare for the elderly)
◇ Promotion of the urgent preparation of facilities and in-home welfare services
1990s: Promotion of the Gold Plan1994 Establishment of the New Gold Plan (new 10-year strategy for the promotion of health and welfare for the elderly)
◇ Improvement of in-home long-term care
Late 1990s: Preparation for adoption of the Long-Term Care Insurance System1997 Enactment of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act
2000s: Introduction of the Long-Term Care Insurance System2000 Enforcement of the Long-Term Care Insurance System
Sources: Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. Long-Term Care Insurance System of Japan [23].

2.2. History of Health and Welfare Policies for Older Adults in England

In England, society’s role in caring for older people was embodied in the 1601 Poor Law, with local parishes having to provide support for their poor. Table S1: Development of Health and Welfare Policies for Older Adults in England shows that responsibility shifted to local authorities in 1834, who then became responsible for providing accommodation in a workhouse for the poor, with people paying for this through their work. People who were ill could enter an infirmary where care was provided free, but only if they declared themselves a pauper. Following the Second World War, the National Health Service (NHS) was established with free healthcare for all, although general practitioners (GPs) remained as independent clinicians contracted by Health Authorities. Social care was excluded from free health services [24]. Instead, social care for older disabled people was means tested and local authorities (LAs) became responsible for either providing services themselves in a locality or contracting and monitoring other care providers and their service delivery [25]. Over time, an increasing number of older people with long-term healthcare needs were placed in long-stay geriatric wards [26]. These were criticised for having custodial ways of working and providing limited rehabilitation [27]. As a result, in the 1980′s, social care became increasingly concerned with trying to support people ‘in the community’ rather than with institutional care, and improving choice and making care more responsive to individual needs. In 1999, a Royal Commission on Long-Term Care reported deficiencies in the way social care was funded, but the main recommendation to provide free personal care was rejected. This was followed by discussion of a partnership between health and social care with the 2006 White Paper Our Health, Our Care, Our Say, seeking the greater integration of health and local authority services for older people. In 2011, degree-level nurse education and specialist geriatric nurse training were introduced [28].

3. Resulting Health and Adult Social Care Systems in Japan and England

Japan’s healthcare for older people is largely delivered through hospitals, of which some 80 per cent are owned by the private sector. Both government (national) and private facilities all receive the same not-for-profit reimbursement [29]. Further medical and nursing care is provided in community clinics, health centres and pharmacies [29]. Patients are able to directly access medical specialists, and most Japanese hospital physicians also practice in community clinics. Unlike England, Japanese general practice is still being developed [30,31]. Patients tend to self-diagnose and then consult a specialist physician. If domiciliary care is required, this is largely provided by for-profit, private businesses, but if a nursing home admission is required, costs are covered by insurance and managed by non-profit social welfare corporations [21]. Residential care homes (with no on-site nurses) providing accommodation and 24 h personal care, such as help with washing, dressing, going to the toilet and taking medication are relatively rare in Japan although common in England [32]. Their development has been identified as a future growth area for not-for-profit private providers in Japan [33]. Challenges emerging over time include dissatisfaction with home-based care, poor provision of necessary support for family carers, and fiscal sustainability [34].
In England, NHS hospital and community health services are provided for free, paid for by taxation and accessed primarily via a GP referral. Meanwhile, adult social care services are means tested and referral is via assessment by social and healthcare staff [35]. In general, assessments differentiate between people with healthcare needs (requiring a place in a nursing home) and those who only need ‘care and attention’ (requiring less expensive residential care home admission or domiciliary care provided at home). The initial attempts by government to separate social and nursing care needs in an older person were largely unsuccessful [36], and it has recently been acknowledged that residential homes also provide care for people with complex healthcare needs [37]. Some people living in the community who have a complex social care need (e.g., severe autism) can hold a personal budget to purchase care; this budget can be managed personally or with the help of an independent Care Navigator [38]. People with complex healthcare needs may also qualify for a personal budget while living in the community; if they move into a nursing home, this can subsidise their costs [39]. The resulting pattern of social care provision in England is regularly described as complex, unfair, failing to meet population needs, and poorly understood by the public, who often assume social care to be part of the NHS [40].

4. Approaches to Integration of Services for Older People

4.1. Evolution of Integrated Community Care ‘Neighbourhood’ System in Japan

In Japan, the economic viability of the New Gold Plan began to face challenges in the new millennium due to the overuse of tests and drugs by doctors and unconstrained demand from patients, resulting in an explosion of costs [41]. In March 2011, the Japan Earthquake highlighted underlying structural problems in the health system that were difficult to resolve fiscally, including those related to long-term care [42]. To help address these, a national policy of devolution to community-based integrated care was introduced for the aging population [10]. This was built upon a model of Health and Welfare Centres that had previously been established in isolated areas, as shown in Figure 1.
At its heart is an Integrated Community Care Support (ICCS) Centre with an expert Care Manager to advise on care plans and help older people keep within a pre-assessed budget allocation, based on insurance designed specifically for long-term care needs introduced by the Long-Term Care Act. Care Managers are expected to ensure nation-wide consistency and fairness, including providing a focus on maintaining health and well-being within culturally supportive communities. They are required to have a national qualification in health, medicine, or welfare, and to have been engaged in work based on that qualification for at least five years. Each ICCS Centre is underpinned by appropriate housing and other forms of support for aging in the community, and a concentration on health promotion and prevention, including the provision of community-based rehabilitation and reablement [44]. The ICCS Centres provide advice on housing and long-term care (excluding nursing homes). The Japanese government’s initial intention was to create a market in health and social care where older people could choose from competitors, including many small community-based care providers. However, large healthcare providers began to expand into care services, which distorted the market [45]. Because Care Managers are mostly funded by such providers, it was considered that this might challenge the perceived independence and fairness of the advice they offer. To deter any conflict of interest, the government levies fines on any provider who puts undue pressure upon a Care Manager. In terms of the care workforce, although there has been some discussion about developing their clinical abilities to support nurses [46], to date, no national strategy has emerged. Conversely, there has been a recent call to increase the number of nurses specializing in Gerontological Nursing and in Home Care Nursing [47].

4.2. Evolution of Integrated Community Care System ‘Neighbourhoods’ in England

In England, the world financial crisis of 2007 led to a decade of austerity and a series of policy changes, as shown in Table S1: Development of Health and Welfare Policies for Older Adults in England. By 2017, only half (49%) of people in care homes were receiving any Local Authority funding [48]. In 2019, the level of government funding for adult social care services fell below 2010/11 levels in real terms, with an extra 1.9 million new clients requesting care [49]. As a result, adult social care services were reported to be at crisis point and on the verge of collapse [50]. In 2019, the government published “The Long-Term Plan”, which proposed the integration of health and social care services at a general population level [51]. It was acknowledged that different histories, cultures, and legal and financial frameworks (including means testing) had hampered the integration of the two services [52]. The Long-Term Plan proposed the establishment of 42 Integrated Care Systems (ICS) across England, each consisting of an integrated care board (with responsibility for spending and performance), and wider integrated care partnerships to address broader population health and social care needs, as shown in Figure 2.
Each ICS structure includes a number of community care ‘neighbourhoods’, each covering a population of 30–50,000 and the associated GP practices. To support these groupings, a new class of “Social Prescribing” link worker is being introduced, and every GP practice in England is expected to have access to a shared link worker by 2023/24. This new role is viewed as a cost-effective way of addressing the fact that one quarter of GP consultations are primarily for a social problem requiring welfare advice, e.g., benefits, employment, housing or debt [54,55]. At present, Social Prescribing Link Workers can only ‘prescribe’ services provided free by charities or voluntary organizations [56,57]. These posts are also not specifically dedicated to the needs of older people.
A further government White Paper “Working together to improve health and social care for all” published in February 2021 signalled a move away from internal market structures and towards integrated care structures for older people [58]. An OECD critique of the marketisation of long-term residential and nursing home care had highlighted providers that were unable to respond to competitive forces without compromising care quality [59]. This White Paper was followed in September 2021 by a post-pandemic recovery plan “Build Back Better: Our Plan for Health and Social Care”, which introduced a new nationwide health and social levy designed to provide extra funding for social care and the NHS [60]. The plan also raised the personal resource threshold (means-testing) for access to LA-funded care on a sliding scale, although it did not address the ‘divide’ between free healthcare for conditions like cancer and personal contributions to social care for dementia [61]. It also appeared that the recovery plan might do little ‘to improve quality of care’ [62], with questions raised about its effective integration [63]. In December 2021, a ten-year vision for adult social care reform was presented in the White Paper “People at the Heart of Care: Adult Social Care Reform” [11]. This was rapidly followed by a further White Paper “Joining up care for people, places and populations” published in February 2022, with proposals for health and care integration [12]. Although this latest document outlined a broad framework, it still contained limited detail [53]. In July 2022, a new Health and Care Act placed this restructuring on a statutory footing [64].

5. Discussion

In Japan, once it became clear in the 1990′s that an aging population would increase costs to an unacceptable level, the government was proactive in introducing long-term national funding reforms for older people’s care. Cross-party consultations were held at the government level to agree upon the long-term policy reforms required. The initial reforms (Gold Plan/New Gold Plan) were followed in 2017 by a national policy of community-based integrated care for older people, as shown in Table 2. In the UK, with a lack of cross-party consultation, governments have tended to focus on short-term initiatives until recently, as shown in Table S1 [65,66]. Any change needs to be managed within a complex adult social care sector with a mix of private for-profit, charitable and local authority providers [48]. There are also deep-seated structural issues with many larger providers owned by private equity funds abroad, attracted to the market due to its potential for refinancing [67]. To date, there has been little consensus on how budgetary control can be equitably managed across both health and care sectors [68,69].
Although the 42 area-based English ICSs are based on geographical localities [51], similar to Japan’s ICCS Centres, there is no exclusive focus on integrated long-term care and considerable individual flexibility, which may lead to geographical variations; for example, the needs of older people may depend not only on their age and other personal demographic factors, but also on whether they live in an urban or rural community. This type of “post code lottery” has recently been reported regarding the provision of domiciliary or home-care services across England [70]. It is also recognised that guidance is not offered to individuals early in their aging care journey, unlike Japan, with choices about care options often made in a crisis situation, for example, when an older person is being discharged from hospital [56]. In such situations, individuals and their families report a lack of information, limited engagement, and feeling powerless to control the situation [71]. This compares to Japan, where older people have access to the support of an expert Care Manager early in the aging process to help them optimise and personalise decisions about their health/social care and housing needs as these emerge and how to use their allocated budget.
In Japan, the ICCS Care Manager is able to refer people from a locality to appropriate housing, support for living, community-based rehabilitation and reablement, with an emphasis on ensuring national consistency. England has no directly comparable workforce. Social Prescribing Link Workers have a more limited role; they cannot refer to a similarly wide range of support services, and they do not focus exclusively on the older population [72]. There is no requirement for a national qualification or for relevant experience for a broader role, with currently ‘no set entry requirements’ [73]. However, through their attachment to a general practice team, they will have access to GP support if required [56]. In contrast, ICCS Care Managers cannot easily access GP support because primary care is still being established in Japan [30]. In England, historical attempts to establish a national cadre of GPs with a special interest in older people have generated limited interest [74,75]. Strategies are now being piloted in some areas to integrate GP services directly into care homes [76]. An expanded role for community geriatricians is not included in the latest proposals for health and care integration [12], even though these physicians have the expertise to support the integration of health and care for older people [68,77].
Both countries face falling birth-rates and a future shortage of care workers to support their aging populations, highlighting a possible need to recruit overseas staff to fill vacancies [78]. Japan has, to date, remained reliant on the country’s own population. This is partly because of language barriers, but also due to historical concerns that non-indigenous staff might be less qualified or dilute the ethos of caring professions [79]. In England, this route is well established with nearly one in five current care workers born outside the UK [80]. Many of these migrant workers report that they are overqualified for their current roles [81]. Post-Brexit immigration rules may restrict the supply of foreign care workers [82].
In Japan, society’s positive attitude towards those in later life [83] has been utilised to build a national system, with a focus on the use of volunteers to complement the work of trained professionals [84]. In England, a less positive view of older people and widespread ageism has been reported in society [85,86]. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the national mobilization of volunteers was successful in supporting older people. Although the ten-year vision for adult social care includes building volunteering capacity [11], it has been acknowledged that this may be difficult [87]. In Japan, there is a continued reliance upon unpaid care provided by family members to subsidise care costs; England does not have a well thought through strategy to integrate the large body of unpaid informal carers [88].
In England, it is unclear how, and to what extent, care homes will be incorporated into the new ICS structures [62,63,89]. The pandemic catalysed closer working between the NHS and care home staff, enabling an enhanced role to be imagined for the social care staff [90]. An “enhanced health in care homes” framework has been updated [91] to include new areas of expertise to be developed by social care workers [92,93]. Attention is now being paid to enhanced roles for nurses employed in nursing homes, with calls for more trained specialist gerontological nurses and a clearer role for their contribution to the integration of health and social care [94]. In Japan, there have been similar calls to increase the numbers of nurses specializing in gerontological nursing [47]. Some early discussion focused on developing the clinical skills of support staff in nursing homes [46], but little attention has been paid to upskilling social care workers. To date, Japan has no national strategy in either area.

Future Innovation and Transformation

As well as structural changes, there are moves in both countries to ‘transform’ care by using technology to enable care to be provided in fundamentally new ways. In Japan, ‘Care Science’ has been designated as a new discipline to complement medical science and nursing science, to accelerate the development of technologies such as assistive robots, sensors and artificial intelligence (AI) [95]. In England, the ten-year vision has highlighted the important role of innovation in adult social care, including in care homes [11]. Evidence suggests that innovations are unlikely to be adopted by English care homes unless benefits can be demonstrated [96]. To address this, a ‘living lab’ approach has been successfully piloted to evaluate and demonstrate similar innovations in situ including sensors, robotics, and digital information systems [97]. The latter will require national training to upskill a workforce that may not be digitally competent [98].
In 2021, Japan’s Ministry of Health established a long-term care information system (LIFE) as part of longer term care fee revisions [99]. One aim is to support Care Science by promoting new ways of working through digital transformation (DX) so that sustainability can be ensured for care systems. In England, the Care Quality Commission, which regulates healthcare and social care, is developing a new strategy to monitor care and improve care quality using digital data collection [100]. A recent agreement with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) aims to improve the use of data and information (including AI and digital health technologies) to transform care [101]. NICE began to establish an evidence collection similar to LIFE, but, to date, this contains relatively few items on social care [102]. In June 2022, NHS England published its “Plan for digital health and social care” [103]. This includes digitizing health and social care records in all 42 ICSs (with 80% of registered social care providers to have digital care records by March 2024) and broadband upgrades to allow remote support and technology-enabled care in all care homes.

6. Conclusions

The analysis presented here compares policy development in two countries with different historical, cultural and health and social care backgrounds. In Japan, the adult health and social care system is newer and less complicated than in England, both in terms of its not-for-profit structures and its age-based insurance funding, and integration is more advanced. It could be argued that this context is more amenable to reform than England, where separate, independently funded services have evolved over several centuries. Recent political changes may slow this process even further. In Japan, the introduction of personal care budgets, the creation of certified Care Managers to provide specific advice, and the fact that government providers and private facilities receive the same not-for-profit national payment rates all help ensure national consistency and fairness. In England, the newly established ICSs, which are not specifically focused on the aging population, are able to develop local strategies, which may increase the likelihood of regional variation and perceived unfairness. In both countries, policies to support future innovation and technology diffusion in the care sector are developing rapidly with implementation that is, possibly, less well developed at a national level in Japan. It is recommended that common definitions of terms should now be developed, including for ‘Care Science’. Both countries are attempting to address issues of sustainability and, for this, there may be critical lessons to be drawn for other countries, as recommended by the WHO [7]. Other countries at different stages of implementing their integrated long-term health and care policies may also find this paper of value. This includes, for example, the United States, where national and state policies developed over the last ten years are now being re-examined [104], or China, where integration is currently being considered within a new policy landscape [105].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph20146352/s1, Table S1: Development of Health and Welfare Policies for Older Adults in England.

Author Contributions

All authors (A.S., H.M., D.W., T.N., M.C., R.K.) contributed to concept and focus of the article. A.S., D.W. and H.M. wrote the first draft, and T.N., M.C. and R.K. critically revised the paper for important aspects. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The views expressed are those of the authors.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Ariko Noji, Dean School of Nursing, Reiwa Health Sciences University, Fukuoka, and Chiba University, Japan, for commenting on the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Mark Collinson established MC2S Consultancy Services following his retirement from Coventry University. He declares there are no conflicts of interest related to this work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Ageing 2020. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/undesa_pd-2020_world_population_ageing_highlights.pdf (accessed on 9 July 2023).
  2. Eurostat. Healthy Life Years Statistics (Data extracted in March 2020). 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Healthy_life_years_statistics#Healthy_life_years_at_age_65 (accessed on 27 October 2020).
  3. Population Reference Bureau. Countries with the Oldest Populations in the World. 2020. Available online: https://www.prb.org/countries-with-the-oldest-populations/ (accessed on 23 October 2020).
  4. Office for National Statistics. Living Longer: How Our Population Is Changing and Why It Matters. Overview of Population Ageing in the UK and some of the Implications for the Economy, Public Services, Society and the Individual. 2018. Available online: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ageing/articles/livinglongerhowourpopulationischangingandwhyitmatters/2018-08-13 (accessed on 26 October 2020).
  5. Towne, S.D.; Smith, M.L.; Li, Y.; Dowdy, D.; Ahn, S.; Lee, S.; Yoshikawa, A.; Jiang, L. A Multi-Level Analyses of Charges and Cost of Fall-Related Hospitalizations Among Older Adults: Individual, Hospital, and Geospatial Variation. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2022, 34, 515–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pin, S.; Spini, D. Meeting the Needs of the Growing Very Old Population: Policy Implications for a Global Challenge. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2016, 28, 218–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rudnicka, E.; Napierała, P.; Podfigurna, A.; Męczekalski, B.; Smolarczyk, R.; Grymowicz, M. The World Health Organization (WHO) approach to healthy ageing. Maturitas 2020, 139, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Briggs, A.M.; Valentijn, P.P.; Thiyagarajan, J.A.; De Carvalho, I.A. Elements of integrated care approaches for older people: A review of reviews. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e021194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ikegami, N.; Yoo, B.-K.; Hashimoto, H.; Matsumoto, M.; Ogata, H.; Babazono, A.; Watanabe, R.; Shibuya, K.; Yang, B.-M.; Reich, M.R.; et al. Japanese universal health coverage: Evolution, achievements, and challenges. Lancet 2011, 378, 1106–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Hatano, Y.; Matsumoto, M.; Okita, M.; Inoue, K.; Takeuchi, K.; Tsutsui, T.; Nishimura, S.; Hayashi, T. The Vanguard of Community-based Integrated Care in Japan: The Effect of a Rural Town on National Policy. Int. J. Integr. Care 2017, 17, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Gov.UK. People at the Heart of Care: Adult Social Care Reform White Paper. 2021. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/people-at-the-heart-of-care-adult-social-care-reform-white-paper (accessed on 2 December 2021).
  12. Gov.UK. Joining up Care for People, Places and Populations—The Government’s Proposals for Health and Care Integration. 2022. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1055688/joining-up-care-for-people-places-and-populations-print-version.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2022).
  13. Curry, N.; Castle-Clarke, S.; Hemmings, N. What can England Learn from the Long-Term Care System in Japan? Nuffield Trust Research Report: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  14. OECD. Revenue Statistics 2020: Tax Revenue Trends in the OECD. 2020. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-highlights-brochure.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2021).
  15. Vollset, S.E.; Goren, E.; Yuan, C.-W.; Cao, J.; Smith, A.E.; Hsiao, T.; Bisignano, C.; Azhar, G.S.; Castro, E.; Chalek, J.; et al. Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: A forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 2020, 396, 1285–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Reich, M.R.; Ikegami, N.; Shibuya, K.; Takemi, K. 50 years of pursuing a healthy society in Japan. Lancet 2011, 378, 1051–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ochiai, E. Unsustainable Societies: The Failure of Familialism in East Asia’s Compressed Modernity. Hist. Soc. Res. Hist. Soz. 2011, 36, 219–245. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jenkins, C.; Germaine, C. Living well in older age: What can we learn from the Japanese experience? Nurs. Older People 2019, 31, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shirahase, S. Income inequality among older people in rapidly aging Japan. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. 2015, 41, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hashimoto, H.; Ikegami, N.; Shibuya, K.; Izumida, N.; Noguchi, H.; Yasunaga, H.; Miyata, H.; Acuin, J.M.; Reich, M.R. Cost containment and quality of care in Japan: Is there a trade-off? Lancet 2011, 378, 1174–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Matsuda, R. The Japanese Healthcare System. In International Health Care System Profiles; Tikkanen, R., Ed.; The Commonwealth Fund: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hayashi, M. Japan’s long-term care policy for older people: The emergence of innovative “mobilisation” initiatives following the 2005 reform. J. Aging Stud. 2015, 33, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. Long-Term Care Insurance System of Japan; Health and Welfare Bureau for the Elderly: Tokyo, Japan, 2016.
  24. Greengross, P.K.; Grant, K.; Collini, E. The History and Development of the UK National Health Service 1948–1999, Revised, 2nd ed.; DFID Health Systems Resource Centre: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  25. The Health Foundation. The National Assistance Act 1948. 2022. Available online: http://navigator.health.org.uk/theme/national-assistance-act-1948 (accessed on 8 April 2022).
  26. Evers, H.K. Tender Loving Care? Patients and Nurses in Geriatric Wards. In Care of the Ageing; Copp, L.A., Ed.; Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh, Scotland, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  27. Wells, T.J. Problems in Geriatric Nursing Care; Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh, UK, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ousey, K. The changing face of student nurse education and training.programmes. Wounds 2011, 7, 70–76. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhang, X.; Oyama, T. Investigating the health care delivery system in Japan and reviewing the local public hospital reform. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2016, 9, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Kaneko, M.; Matsushima, M. Current trends in Japanese Healthcare: Establishing a system for board-certificated GPs. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2017, 67, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Takamura, A. The Present Circumstance of Primary Care in Japan. Qual. Prim. Care 2015, 23, 262–266. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kavedzija, I. What can the world learn about Japan’s social care system? World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  33. Robertson, R.; Gregory, S.; Jabbal, J. The Social Care and Health Systems of Nine Countries; The King’s Fund: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tamiya, N.; Noguchi, H.; Nishi, A.; Reich, M.R.; Ikegami, N.; Hashimoto, H.; Shibuya, K.; Kawachi, I.; Campbell, J.C. Population ageing and wellbeing: Lessons from Japan's long-term care insurance policy. Lancet 2011, 378, 1183–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Petrie, K.; Kirkup, J. A market for residential care services. Soc. Mark. Found. 2020. Available online: https://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/A-market-for-residential-care-services-Sept-20.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  36. Wild, D.; Ford, P. An Evaluation of the RNCC Tool for the determination of residents’ needs for registered nursing care when in use in nursing homes. In Report to Department of Health from the Gerontological Nursing Programme; Houses of Parliament Library. DEP01/1596 19th November 2001; Royal College of Nursing: Karnataka, India, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dudman, J.; Meyer, J.; Holman, C.; Moyle, W. Recognition of the complexity facing residential care homes: A practitioner inquiry. Prim. Health Care Res. Dev. 2018, 19, 584–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Bennett, L.; Honeyman, M.; Bottery, S. New Models of Home Care; The King’s Fund: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  39. Department of Health and Social Care. National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-Funded Nursing Care (Revised October 2018); Department of Health & Social Care: London, UK, 2018.
  40. Curry, N.; Hemmings, N.; Oung, C.; Keeble, E. Social Care: The Action We Need. In Nuffield Trust Report; Nuffield Trust: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nomura, H.; Nakayama, T. The Japanese healthcare system. BMJ 2005, 331, 648–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shibuya, K.; Hashimoto, H.; Ikegami, N.; Nishi, A.; Tanimoto, T.; Miyata, H.; Takemi, K.; Reich, M.R. Future of Japan’s system of good health at low cost with equity: Beyond universal coverage. Lancet 2011, 378, 1265–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. Establishing the Community-Based Integrated Care System. 2017. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/policy/care-welfare/care-welfare-elderly/dl/establish_e.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2021).
  44. Hasegawa, T.; Matsumoto, K.; Onishi, R.; Hirata, K. Social and health sector reform towards 2040 in Japan. Public Adm. Policy 2020, 23, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Curry, N.; Holder, H.; Patterson, L. Caring for An Ageing Population: Points to Consider from Reform in Japan; Nuffield Trust: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  46. Inoue, T. Developing the clinical abilities of care workers in Japan. Nurs. Older People 2012, 24, 32–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Song, P.; Tang, W. The community-based integrated care system in Japan: Health care and nursing care challenges posed by super-aged society. Biosci. Trends 2019, 13, 279–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Competition & Markets Authority. Care Homes Market Study: Summary of Final Report; Competition & Markets Authority: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  49. Bottery, S. What Will the Government’s Proposals Mean for the Social Care System? 2021. Available online: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/government-proposals-social-care-system (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  50. Dunn, P.; Allen, L.; Humphries, R.; Alderwick, H. Briefing: Adult Social Care and COVID-19. Assessing the Policy Response in England So Far. Available online: https://doi.org/10.37829/HF-2020-P06 (accessed on 29 May 2022).
  51. National Health Service. The Long Term Plan; NHS: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  52. Glasby, J. The holy grail of health and social care integration. BMJ 2017, 356, j801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. The King’s Fund. Integrated Care Systems: How Will They Work under the Health and Care Act? 2022. Available online: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/integrated-care-systems-health-and-care-act (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  54. The Low Commission. The Role of Advice Services in Health Outcomes: Evidence Review and Mapping Study. 2015. Available online: https://www.thelegaleducationfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Role-of-Advice-Services-in-Health-Outcomes.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2021).
  55. Polley, M.J.; Pilkington, K. A Review of the Evidence Assessing Impact of Social Prescribing on Healthcare Demand and Cost Implications. 2017. Available online: https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/q1455/a-review-of-the-evidence-assessing-impact-of-social-prescribing-on-healthcare-demand-and-cost-implications (accessed on 10 March 2021).
  56. Tierney, S.; Wong, G.; Mahtani, K.R. Current understanding and implementation of ‘care navigation’ across England: A cross-sectional study of NHS clinical commissioning groups. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2019, 69, e675–e681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Office for Health Improvement & Disparities. Guidance—Social Prescribing: Applying All Our Health (Updated 27 January 2022). 2022. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-prescribing-applying-all-our-health/social-prescribing-applying-all-our-health (accessed on 26 May 2022).
  58. Department of Health and Social Care. Working Together to Improve Health and Social Care for All; Department of Health & Social Care: London, UK, 2021.
  59. Walker, C.C.; Druckman, A.; Jackson, T. A critique of the marketisation of long-term residential and nursing home care. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022. 3, e298–e306.
  60. Gov.UK. Build Back Better: Our Plan for Health and Social Care (Updated 15 September 2021; Updated 8 March 2022). 2021. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/build-back-better-our-plan-for-health-and-social-care/build-back-better-our-plan-for-health-and-social-care (accessed on 10 October 2021).
  61. Oliver, D. Social care plan furthers inequality and unfairness. BMJ 2021, 374, 2021b. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Glasby, J. (Ed.) Adult social care in England: More disappointment, delay, and distraction. BMJ 2021, 374, n2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Griffin, S. Social care: Promise to propose reforms later this year is far from reassuring, says committee chair. BMJ 2021, 372, n289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Gov.UK. Health and Care Act 2022. 2022. Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/31/contents/enacted (accessed on 9 June 2022).
  65. Wanless, D. Securing Good Care for Older People: Taking a Long-Term View; King’s Fund: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  66. Nuffield Trust. NHS Reform Timeline (1940s to 2020s). 2023. Available online: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/features/nhs-reform-timeline (accessed on 15 June 2022).
  67. Curry, N.; Oung, C. Fractured and Forgotten? The Social Care Provider Market in England; Nuffield Trust Report: Lndon, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  68. British Geriatrics Society, A Quest for Quality in Care Homes. Available online: https://www.bgs.org.uk/sites/default/files/content/attachment/2019-08-27/quest_quality_care_homes.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2022).
  69. Ham, C. Making Sense of Integrated Care Systems, Integrated Care Partnerships and Accountable Care Organisations in the NHS in England. Available online: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/making-sense-integrated-care-systems (accessed on 8 April 2021).
  70. Thomas, C. Community First Social Care—Care in Places People Call Home. 2021. Available online: https://www.ippr.org/files/2021-09/1631196359_community-social-care-2021.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2021).
  71. Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute. Care Homes: Consumer Research. In Ipsos MORI Report for the CMA; Ipsos MORI: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  72. King, E.; Sawyer, E.M. How Might Leadership Roles Evolve in Integrated Health and Care Systems? Report for the NHS Leadership Academy. 2021. Available online: https://www.scie.org.uk/files/integrated-care/leadership/leadership-roles-in-the-future-health-and-care-system.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2021).
  73. NHS. Social Prescribing Link Worker. 2022. Available online: https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/wider-healthcare-team/roles-wider-healthcare-team/clinical-support-staff/social-prescribing-link-worker/social-prescribing-link-worker (accessed on 7 June 2022).
  74. Gérvas, J.; Starfield, B.; Violán, C.; Minué, S. GPs with special interests: Unanswered questions. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2007, 57, 912–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Appadurai, E.; Thomas-Noy, B.; Arulanandam, M. Undergraduate exposure to GPs with Extended Roles. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2019, 69, 543–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Gordon, A.L.; Goodman, C.; Davies, S.L.; Dening, T.; Gage, H.; Meyer, J.; Schneider, J.; Bell, B.; Jordan, J.; Martin, F.C.; et al. Optimal healthcare delivery to care homes in the UK: A realist evaluation of what supports effective working to improve healthcare outcomes. Age Ageing 2018, 47, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. British Geriatrics Society. Improving Healthcare for Older People. BGS Strategic Plan 2020–2023. Available online: https://www.bgs.org.uk/sites/default/files/content/attachment/2019-11-29/BGS%20Strategic%20Plan%202020-23.pdf.2019 (accessed on 24 June 2022).
  78. International Organization for Migration. The Role of Migrant Care Workers in Ageing Societies: Report on Research Findings in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and the United States. In IOM Migration Research Series; R.a.P. International Organization for Migration: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  79. Serizawa, A. Developing a culturally competent health care workforce in Japan: Implications for education. Nurs. Educ. Perspect 2007, 28, 140–144. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  80. Franklin, B.; Brancati, C.U. Moved to Care: The Impact of Migration on the Adult Social Care Workforce; Independent Age: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  81. OECD. Who Cares? Attracting and Retaining Care Workers for the Elderly. In OECD Health Policy Studies; OECD iLibrary: Paris, France, 2020; Available online: https://doi.org/10.1787/92c0ef68-en (accessed on 2 August 2022).
  82. Thomas, C.; Poku-Amanfo, V.; Patel, P. The State of Health and Care 2022. 2022. Available online: http://www.ippr.org/research/publications/state-of-health-and-care-2022 (accessed on 13 December 2021).
  83. Kavedzija, I. The good life in balance. Insights from aging in Japan. HAU J. Ethnogr. Theory 2015, 5, 135–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Sakamoto, H.; Rahman, M.; Nomura, S.; Okamoto, E.; Koike, S. Japan Health System Review. Health Syst. Transit. 2018, 8, 1–160. [Google Scholar]
  85. Roberts, E. Briefing Note: Age Discrimination in Health and Social Care; The King’s Fund: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  86. Denham, M. A Brief History of the Care of the Elderly. History of Geriatric Medicine; British Geriatrics Society: London, UK, 2016. Available online: https://www.bgs.org.uk/resources/a-brief-history-of-the-care-of-the-elderly (accessed on 8 April 2021).
  87. Department for Digital Culture Media and Sports. Guidance: Enabling Safe and Effective Volunteering during Coronavirus (COVID-19). Available online: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enabling-safe-and-effective-volunteering-during-coronavirus-COVID-19 (accessed on 8 April 2021).
  88. Foley, N.; Powell, A.; Kennedy, S.; Powell, T.; Roberts, N.; Harker, R.; Francis-Devine, B.; Foster, D.; Brione, P.; Danechi, S. Informal carers. Commons Library Research Briefing, Number 07756 (7 June 2021). 2021. Available online: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7756/CBP-7756.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
  89. Szczepura, A. Written Response to NHS England and NHS Improvement Proposals Set Out in the Document: ‘Integrated Care: Next Steps to Build Strong and Effective Integrated Care Systems Across England. 2021. Available online: https://pureportal.coventry.ac.uk/en/persons/ala-szczepura (accessed on 8 April 2021).
  90. Wild, D.J.; Szczepura, A. Reimagining care homes: Can the COVID-19 pandemic act as a catalyst for enhancing staff status and education? Nurs. Older People 2021, 33, 20–25. [Google Scholar]
  91. NHS England and NHS Improvement. The Framework for Enhanced Health in Care Homes. Version 2 (March 2020). Available online: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/the-framework-for-enhanced-health-in-care-homes-v2-0.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2020).
  92. Care Provider Alliance. Enhanced Health in Care Homes: A Guide for Care Homes; Care Provider Alliance: 2021. Available online: https://careprovideralliance.org.uk/assets/pdfs/enhanced-health-in-care-homes-cpa-guide.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2021).
  93. Skills for Care. Adult Social Care Workforce Data (England). 2021. Available online: https://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/adult-social-care-workforce-data/adult-social-care-workforce-data.aspx (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  94. Szczepura, A.K.; Wild, D.; Kneafsey, R. Adult social care in England: Revive the role of gerontological nurse specialist. BMJ 2021, 375, n2567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Science Council of Japan. Clinical Medicine Committee/Health/Life Science Committee Joint Care Science Subcommittee in an Aging Society with a Declining Birthrate, Recommendation: Forming the Foundation of Care Science and Creating a Future Society; Science Council of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2020. (In Japanese)
  96. Wild, D.; Szczepura, A.; Bowman, C.; Kydd, A.; Wallis, R. Differing perspectives on a role for technology in care homes to improve the lives of older people and the work environment of staff. Hous. Care Support 2014, 17, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Szczepura, A.; Collinson, M.; Moody, L.; Jing, Y.; Ward, G.; Bul, K.; Arnab, S.; Asbury, C.; Russell, E.; Gibbons, C.; et al. Living Lab Concept: An Innovation Hub For Elderly Residential Care. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2018, 34, 99–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Loizou, M.; Xu, Z. Digital Skills Gap in the Healthcare Sector. Technical Report. 2020. Available online: https://3yy7gm31u9o0it5f51gqn0j1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IoC-Healthcare-Report-Smaller-Version.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2021).
  99. Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. About the Scientific Long-term Care Information System for Evidence (LIFE). 2021. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi2/0000198094_00037.html (accessed on 18 July 2022). (In Japanese)
  100. Care Quality Commission. The World of Health and Social Care Is Changing. So Are We. 2022. Available online: https://www.cqc.org.uk/get-involved/consultations/world-health-social-care-changing-so-are-we (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  101. Care Quality Commission. Memorandum of Understanding—National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): Updated 12 May 2022. 2022. Available online: https://www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/our-partnerships/memorandum-understanding-nice (accessed on 12 July 2022).
  102. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Care Homes—Products. A List of All our Products on Care Homes. 2021. Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/settings/care-homes/products?Status=Published (accessed on 19 July 2022).
  103. NHS England. A Plan for Digital Health and Social Care. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-plan-for-digital-health-and-social-care/a-plan-for-digital-health-and-social-care (accessed on 30 June 2022).
  104. Sandhu, S.; Sharma, A.; Cholera, R.; Bettger, J.P. Integrated Health and Social Care in the United States: A Decade of Policy Progress. Int. J. Integr. Care 2021, 21, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Feng, Z.; Glinskaya, E.; Chen, H.; Gong, S.; Qiu, Y.; Xu, J.; Yip, W. Long-term care system for older adults in China: Policy landscape, challenges, and future prospects. Lancet 2020, 396, 1362–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 20 06352 g001 550
Figure 1. Integrated community care support ‘neighbourhood’ system in Japan. Source: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [43].
Figure 1. Integrated community care support ‘neighbourhood’ system in Japan. Source: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [43].
Ijerph 20 06352 g001
Ijerph 20 06352 g002 550
Figure 2. Integrated community care system ‘neighbourhood’ in England (key planning and partnership bodies). Source: The King’s Fund 2022 [53].
Figure 2. Integrated community care system ‘neighbourhood’ in England (key planning and partnership bodies). Source: The King’s Fund 2022 [53].
Ijerph 20 06352 g002
Table
Table 1. Comparison of Long-Term Care Challenges in Japan and UK.
Table 1. Comparison of Long-Term Care Challenges in Japan and UK.
ComparatorJapanUK
Total population127.4 million66.5 million
Mean life expectancy83.9 years81.1 years
Percentage of population aged 65 and over in 201927.316.0
Percentage of population predicted to be aged ≥65 by 204034.224.3
Percentage of GDP spent on health9.49.4
Tax revenue as percentage of GDP32.032.9
Predicted total population in 210059.7 million71.4 million
Sources: [1,13,14,15].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Szczepura, A.; Masaki, H.; Wild, D.; Nomura, T.; Collinson, M.; Kneafsey, R. Integrated Long-Term Care ‘Neighbourhoods’ to Support Older Populations: Evolving Strategies in Japan and England. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 6352. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20146352

AMA Style

Szczepura A, Masaki H, Wild D, Nomura T, Collinson M, Kneafsey R. Integrated Long-Term Care ‘Neighbourhoods’ to Support Older Populations: Evolving Strategies in Japan and England. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(14):6352. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20146352

Chicago/Turabian Style

Szczepura, Ala, Harue Masaki, Deidre Wild, Toshio Nomura, Mark Collinson, and Rosie Kneafsey. 2023. "Integrated Long-Term Care ‘Neighbourhoods’ to Support Older Populations: Evolving Strategies in Japan and England" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 14: 6352. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20146352

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop